Hispanic Shoots Black
The lamestream media told you:
A Hispanic volunteer neighborhood watchman shot a poor little unarmed black child to death, and he had the unmitigated gall to claim Florida's recent Stand Your Ground law let him commit the murder with impunity and no repercussions.
This has inflamed all Americans, as it should, and especially the black community, and especially the black people and people of all colors in Florida. Such a terrible law has been passed in many Neanderthal states, according to the unbiased Associated Press.
According to the esteemed New York Times, the shooter was actually something new called a "white Hispanic," proving the racial nature of the crime, or at least of the report. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/us/police-chief-draws-fire-in-trayvon-martin-shooting.html?_r=1
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
We can't really tell what actually happened in Florida since all we have are "news" reports, and we both know how accurate those are, especially related to armed self-defense and other gun-related subjects:
You'll get a kick out of this one--
From the Florida "news" reports, it sounds like this guy stalked and gunned down a helpless little youngster. If that were true, there's no way he could be protected by law. There is no way he would not be charged.
If on the other hand, this kid posed a genuine and serious threat to life or limb, which the survivor claims, then of course the use of deadly force to protect yourself from the criminal assault would be legally justified, historically and culturally normative, and righteous and moral by any standard.
If that's true, then the universal news tone that this bigot murdered this poor innocent child, would really be, the neighborhood watchman stopped yet another murderous young black thug in the midst of a felony assault. We don't know yet, and the pictures of the kid are so cute, so why let facts get in the way of a good story. Guilty before facts are even known.
The "news" reports did also mention in passing that the person who claims he defended himself against the black youth was bloodied about the head, but that's such a small detail it should have little play in this tale. Life is a precious gift, and it is to be protected from unwarranted attack, whether four-legged, two-legged or other. All of this is completely regardless of the no-retreat law the media has mysteriously latched onto.
The recent rash of stand-your-ground laws are, to a large degree, a response to anti-gun-rights prosecutors who in the past have used any excuse to go after otherwise righteous and innocent people, just because they exercised their right to arms. In those cases, the prosecutors are the ones who belong in prison. Harold Fish, here where I live, spent 3-1/2 years in prison, and spent $700,000 in his self-defense case, and he was innocent. That should not be allowed to happen.
Government should at least pick up legal costs when it loses a self-defense case -- meaning you should never have been charged in the first place. This would also help deter politically motivated or agenda-driven charges, which are widely known to occur. I plan to draft such language.
Some legislators have introduced legally suspect laws that require you to abandon your home rather than protect it, or run away from where you have a right to be. That's always an option, and often the best one, but it certainly isn't something the state can legitimately require, granting all power to criminals and denying it to the public. Freedom is hollow if you can't stay where you have a right to stay.
Even without a no-duty-to-retreat law on the books, the immediate defense of innocent life, when necessary, is a right we all have, and should have, and is inherent in our very nature. The right to legitimately defend yourself should be honored by any court (assuming you have a good lawyer, plenty of money, a proper prosecutor, in a good jurisdiction, with ascertainable facts, and no contrary witness testimony from the perp's buddies, and cops who responded properly, and a benign face... the list is endless).
Arizona has the finest gun laws in the nation. Our self-defense statutes are particularly robust and protect the innocent while being harsh on criminals. If we can find out what actually happened in this incident, we could intelligently apply our laws to see what would have happened here.
If this white Hispanic male was criminally attacked by a black or by a white black or by a person of any color or color mixture, and he survived by his own hand, any law in the land should protect him. If he killed this youngster without cause, no law in the land will protect him and he could face death. That's what you call good law. We have the needed laws. They're good.
I can almost feel the antis brainstorming and gearing up to use this wholesome self-defense case (or heinous murder, as the case may turn out to be), to force new laws on us. The proper laws are already there, and justice will be served. Dancing in the blood of criminals (or victims, as the case may turn out to be), to get new anti-rights laws enacted, would be despicable. But no surprise.
Late breaking news (3/26/12): A leaked police report indicated today that the youngster was the aggressor, but the "family" denies this (and was not present to witness); evidence shows the youngster instigated the assault, which the "family" denies (and was not present to witness); the leaked report indicates the youngster had been suspended from school, and may have been high, and the family knew this, but the family says this has no bearing; CNN indicated the news should have never been revealed, but since it has, the world has to deal with it; CNN added that the search is on for the person who released these facts, and if found will likely face dismissal, to which CNN voiced no objection, probably because it was not a CNN leak source, which are highly honored.
EVEN LATER BREAKING NEWS: Images you have been treated to by the lamestream may not be accurate according to reports on the unreliable un-federally regulated (yet) Internet.
Don't forget, in self defense, the "victim" is the person with the gun who survives the criminal assault. The person with the bloody holes is not the victim, despite media reports to the contrary. The person shot is the perpetrator.